Skip to main content

Sunday's New York Times offers an explosive story of an aborted 2005 U.S. raid into Pakistan, a special forces operation designed to "snatch and grab" Ayman Al Zawahiri and other senior Al Qaeda leaders.  The story, following July 2006 revelations that the CIA had previously disbanded its Bin Laden unit, gives lie to one of the central tenets of the so-called Bush Doctrine: no safe havens for terrorists.

The Times piece details Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld running roughshod over then CIA Director Porter Goss, scuttling the mission at the last moment even as the U.S. forces were boarding planes for the assault:

But the mission was called off after Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, rejected an 11th-hour appeal by Porter J. Goss, then the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, officials said. Members of a Navy Seals unit in parachute gear had already boarded C-130 cargo planes in Afghanistan when the mission was canceled, said a former senior intelligence official involved in the planning.

Mr. Rumsfeld decided that the operation, which had ballooned from a small number of military personnel and C.I.A. operatives to several hundred, was cumbersome and put too many American lives at risk, the current and former officials said. He was also concerned that it could cause a rift with Pakistan, an often reluctant ally that has barred the American military from operating in its tribal areas, the officials said.

This sad tale knocks out the last of the three legs of the wobbly Bush Doctrine.  The calamitous invasion of Iraq and the global disdain for the ensuing American occupation destroyed one pillar, the neo-conservative love affair with preventive war.  The carnage in Baghdad, the chaos in Beirut and the Hamas takeover of Gaza fatally undermined the second, Bush's evangelical fervor for democracy promotion.  (The blind eye he turned towards Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and China, among others, didn't help Bush's credibility as a democracy crusader, either.) And now, the frailty of the Musharraf government, impeding action against Al Qaeda in Pakistan by either Islamabad or Washington, shows that the terrorists can in fact enjoy safe havens.

In his address to Congress on September 20, 2001, a determined President Bush declared his "no safe havens" principle even as the World Trade Center towers still smoldered in lower Manhattan:

"We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

In this as in so many other arenas, George W. Bush was mugged by reality.  His black and white worldview did not comport to the complexities on the ground in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq or virtually anywhere.  Musharraf's de facto truce agreement with Al Qaeda and its allies in the northwest tribal areas effectively tied his hands - and ours.

As the Times implies, the cancelled raid and limited missile strikes should lead President Bush's amen corner to reconsider its critique of Bill Clinton's pre-9/11 efforts to capture or kill Bin Laden.  That, of course, will never happen.  "Blame Bill" is all that remains of Republican policy, foreign or domestic.

As for the Bush Doctrine, as I wrote just three weeks ago, its short but unhappy life has come to an end.  A bad idea whose time never came, its passing will not be mourned.

For more background, see:

  • "The Death of the Bush Doctrine" (June 16, 2007)
  • "The Myth of the Bush Doctrine" (March 9, 2005)
  • ** Crossposted at Perrspectives **

    Originally posted to Jon Perr on Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 10:36 AM PDT.

    Your Email has been sent.
    You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

    Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
    Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


    More Tagging tips:

    A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

    Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

    If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

    Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

    Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

    You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
    Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
    Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
    Rescue this diary, and add a note:
    Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
    Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

    You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

    Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
    Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
    (The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
    (The diary will be removed.)
    Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

    Comment Preferences

    •  Mushareff has been shot at twice in the last few (0+ / 0-)

      days. think things are going to blow there. No telling how this could destablize Afghanistan.

    •  Memories (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      acquittal, wonmug, buddabelly

      Back in the 2004 election Bush was almost giddy in his derision of John Kerry's "nuanced" approach to terrorism.  And the MSM just swallowed it whole and perpetuated the myth of the plain-spoken President.  What happened to "we will make no distinctions between terrorists and the states that harbor them"?

      Today it looks like Bush is up to his eyeballs in nuance as it pertains to just about everything to do with terrorism and in particular our stance with Pakistan.

      Gosh, who would have thought that the complex subject of how to combat terrorism could not be reduced to pithy black-and-white slogans like "you're either with us or against us"? /snark

      I don't know who I get more upset with ... the wingnuts or their legions of acolytes in the MSM.

      As for the Red Mosque in Islamabad, it sort of has the feel of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco.  Except the extremists in the Red Mosque are no fringe sect and Abdul Rashid Ghazi is no David Koresh.  But the outcome looks like it is heading for the same conclusion.

    Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

    Click here for the mobile view of the site